• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

Status
Not open for further replies.
When one person is screaming about having four fingers and a thumb and the other one is screaming about having five fingers, they aren't actually have a discussion about how many fingers you have and trying to make the conversation move forward by stopping to have each of them count the fingers again is the definition of insanity.

We are having a discussion about how to define woman, not a discussion of where women belong.
 
JoeMorgue said:
At this point. Push for more privacy in general and harsher penalties for sexual crimes.

It ain't perfect and it ain't going to make a lot of people anywhere near fully happy, but it's a start.
Click to expand...

I've said this before... I think that could be a feasible solution for restrooms and locker rooms. Not necessarily ideal (females lose access to a social refuge, as well as an area where we communicate openly with each other), but somewhat acceptable.

It doesn't, however, address the greater social issues of:
  • Allowing transwomen to count as women in terms of executive and political representation, wage gaps, career progress, etc.
  • Allowing transwomen to access scholarships, mentorships, short-list positions, etc that are reserved for women
  • Access by right to sex-segregated rape and domestic violence shelters
  • Placement in prisons
  • Honorifics intended to advance women social, such as "woman of the year", "highest paid female CEo", and "funniest female comedian" which are currently going to males
  • Participation in sports, especially middle school and high school sports where the pubertal influence of testosterone has a significant affect, that also impacts sports-based scholarships for girls

A lot of those issues keep getting hand-waved away, and the focus is always dragged back to bathrooms and showers.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:mgbanghead

Yep. all the things that have actually happened, that you keep ignoring for a few days... then you just say again "those things never happen, it's all hyperbole" as if you've never been shown the things that HAVE ALREADY ACUTALLY HAPPENED!!!!!

How many rapes should female be expected to suffer in order to validate and affirm the feelings of transwomen?
Click to expand...

Jordan Peterson claimed that C-16 would make misgendering a trans person into hate speech that could result in criminal conviction.

This is, simply put, total nonsense. Wild hyperbole, even.

I would think someone should ask Peterson a follow-up question about this obvious lie years after the fact, but I doubt we would get a cogent answer given that he seems to have permanently injured his brain while seeking quack cures for his benzo addiction.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
He has lately been calling the fire department repeatedly while naked in the tub for "lift assistance" then making lewd suggestions and overtures to the responding firemen.
Click to expand...


OMG I didn't know about that one! What next?

The sheer precipitate descent of that one from the days of the apparently clean-cut "Trusted Nerd" persona is eye-popping.
 
JoeMorgue said:
When one person is screaming about having four fingers and a thumb and the other one is screaming about having five fingers, they aren't actually have a discussion about how many fingers you have and trying to make the conversation move forward by stopping to have each of them count the fingers again is the definition of insanity.

We are having a discussion about how to define woman, not a discussion of where women belong.
Click to expand...

You've used this analogy before, and I understand what you're trying to say... but I disagree heartily with the analogy as a whole.

You're relying on a distinction without a difference. Whether we count four fingers and at thumb or five fingers, we're still talking about five phalanges attached to a palm. It's still the same thing, using different terms.

That's the opposite of this situation. In this situation, we're talking about objectively different things, but at least some people are trying to use the same term for both.

As a parallel to your analogy... you're suggesting that we're arguing about whether or not a satsuma and a tangerine are the same thing or not. In reality, however, we're arguing about whether or not a grapefruit is a tangerine if someone paints it orange.
 
Rolfe said:
If anyone can see a woman's vagina without using a speculum and a torch, something is very wrong.
Click to expand...

It's a source of irritation to me that there's no conversationally acceptable word for that thing we really can see when we look at a naked lady, because of course the most common word that people say, on this side of the pond, is "vagina", which of course isn't actually visible.

"Vulva" just sounds weird. "Pussy" sounds kind of vulgar, although it's a bit more acceptable than it was just a few years ago. We really ought to be able to talk about both sorts of bodies without shame, and actually use words that actually mean what we are saying. Oh, well.

ETA: It also took me a moment to remember that "torch" is what you folks call flashlights. There was a momentary very odd visual for me.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
OMG I didn't know about that one! What next?

The sheer precipitate descent of that one from the days of the apparently clean-cut "Trusted Nerd" persona is eye-popping.
Click to expand...

I genuinely think that the only reason CA hasn't put him behind bars is because he's a hihg-profile person claiming transgender status. It would be too much of a PR nightmare.

So they pretty much just continue to let this predator walk free.
 
Meadmaker said:
To be fair, some of us are thinking that it might be.

Either it's circular, which makes it meaningless and worthless or it has to be taken at face value to mean that a woman is a social construct only, and defined by behavior. That isn't meaningless, but it doesn't seem like where we really want to go.

On the other hand, that's taking the definition literally and without context. As the rest of your post noted, what's really significant is how that definition can be used in order to formulate policy that is based on the definition. That's really the critical part, not the wordplay sparring. What are the implications for public policy? We'll see if that conversation goes anywhere that isn't in circles. (Hope springs eternal.)
Click to expand...

I mean, it's pretty clear that's where a lot of us have ended up. And a lot of us are filling in the blanks LJ insists on leaving with pretty much that.

But LJ hasn't ended up there, yet. I'm more than happy to put the conclusion on hold, so that LJ has a chance to actually discuss and argue for the meaning and worth of his definition, in terms of public policy.
 
Meadmaker said:
It's a source of irritation to me that there's no conversationally acceptable word for that thing we really can see when we look at a naked lady, because of course the most common word that people say, on this side of the pond, is "vagina", which of course isn't actually visible.

"Vulva" just sounds weird. "Pussy" sounds kind of vulgar, although it's a bit more acceptable than it was just a few years ago. We really ought to be able to talk about both sorts of bodies without shame, and actually use words that actually mean what we are saying. Oh, well.
Click to expand...

Coochie, Cookie, Muffin, Lady-Garden, Happy-Valley, Pubis, Fanny, take your pick. Let's get creative.
 
Our language has crappy terms for genitals. Everything is either too clinical, too vulgar, or too euphemistic.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Jordan Peterson claimed <snip>
Click to expand...

This is a complete non sequitur. Why not just answer Emily's Cat's question?

Presumably you agree that if there's too much rape, we will need a different policy.

So.

What policy would you recommend, if it turns out there's too much rape?

And what is your threshold for too much rape?

Bonus questions:

What about the rape that is already going on? Is it too much?

Is it medically necessary to accept any new risk of rape at all, no matter how small?
 
theprestige said:
This is a complete non sequitur. Why not just answer Emily's Cat's question?

Presumably you agree that if there's too much rape, we will need a different policy.

So.

What policy would you recommend, if it turns out there's too much rape?

And what is your threshold for too much rape?

Bonus questions:

What about the rape that is already going on? Is it too much?

Is it medically necessary to accept any new risk of rape at all, no matter how small?
Click to expand...

EC evaded my question about the obvious hyperbolic statements made about trans inclusive policy. Peterson's comments were very much part of the discourse during the runup to C-16 becoming law in Canada. Critics claimed it was hyperbolic scare-mongering at the time, and hindsight has proven it was totally unsubstantiated and bad faith. The repeated trotting out of Yaniv as if her legal claims were ever anything more than a vexatious side-show is a clear attempt to scare-monger about the issue. It is very much on topic.

Seems to me the rape that is occurring in prisons has a lot more to do with our society's willingness to tolerate barbaric treatment of "bad people" than it has to do with trans policy.

Frankly, I find the implied premise that unchecked sexual abuse is just fine as-is, so long as it remains contained to men's facilities, pretty disgusting. The solution isn't to contain human right violations to men's jails and throw trans women to the wolves.

Women's shelters, by and large, aren't asking for this "protection", and I defer to their expertise. The anti-trans people are white knighting for crisis shelters in a way that the people running them say is detrimental to their mission and are often the most vocal critics of such policies.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Words that can be used interchangeably without queering the debate: vulva, vagina.

Words that cannot be used interchangeably without queering the debate: woman, transwoman, female.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but vulva and vagina are not interchangeable words, they are two entirely different anatomical structures. Like your hand and your arm, only more so.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Our language has crappy terms for genitals. Everything is either too clinical, too vulgar, or too euphemistic.
Click to expand...

It's probably not the language's fault. I think the issue is the historical squeamishness about actually acknowledging that women have sexual organs.



Come to think of it, I never hear anyone talk about penis envy anymore. That's probably a sign of progress.
 
Rolfe said:
Sorry, but vulva and vagina are not interchangeable words, they are two entirely different anatomical structures. Like your hand and your arm, only more so.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but technically correct is the worst kind of correct. The truth is that "vagina" is used colloquially without any confusion of meaning. It's not necessary to contest it every time.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Someone defining themselves as a woman because they assume some traditional traits of woman is still perpetrating old stereotypes. It doesn't magically become progressive and inclusive because they are doing it in non-traditional ways.
Click to expand...

What would you consider a non-stereotypical way for a male to deal with gender dysphoria?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Cool. I will assume that you oppose laws that disallow convicted sex offenders from living right next to school?
Click to expand...

:boggled: Of course not! That's a deduction from past behavior. That's not what I meant by fear itself.

Obviously a sexual predator, or someone who objectively shows signs of becoming a sexual predator, should be kept away from women or children inasmuch as society can. But that has nothing to do with whether they're transgender.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom